Category: Banks & Interest Rates

Posted on

Five Challenges facing President Obama

On his inauguration in 2009, Barack Obama inherited a massive headache from the GFC. With unemployment stubbornly above 9 percent, efforts to create new jobs have so far proved futile.

  • Low interest rates from the Fed failed to stimulate new investment. Richard Koo coined the phrase balance-sheet recession to describe private sector reaction to a financial crisis. Low interest rates have as much effect as pushing on a string. Corporations and households alike have no wish to borrow in the face of falling asset prices and erosion of their own balance sheets — and banks have little desire to lend.
  • Quantitative easing failed to lower long-term interest rates and stimulate employment. Instead it revived inflation expectations, creating a surge in commodity prices.
  • The trade deficit widened despite the falling dollar, reflecting an inability of US exports to compete in offshore markets — and a loss of manufacturing jobs as foreign exporters made inroads into US domestic markets.
  • Fiscal stimulus, whether through tax cuts or spending on education or infrastructure not only failed to create sustainable jobs but has left the taxpayer with a mountain of public debt.
  • The home construction industry, a major employer, remains stagnant. Inventories of new and existing homes amount to more than 12 months sales at current rates — when one includes “shadow inventory” of homes repossessed, in foreclosure, or with mortgages delinquent for 90 days or more.

Deflation threat
When the housing bubble collapsed, households and corporates were threatened by falling values and shrinking credit. Savings increased and were used to repay debt rather than channeled through the financial system into new capital investment. A deflationary gap opened up between income and spending: repaying debt does not generate income as new capital investment does. The gap may appear small but, like air escaping from a punctured tire, can cause significant damage to overall income levels as it replays over and over through the economy. The only way to plug the gap is for government to spend more than it collects by way of taxes, but the result is a sharp increase in public debt.

Five point plan
Companies are unwilling to commence hiring until consumption increases — and consumption is unlikely to increase until employment levels rise. The only solution is to create sustainable jobs while minimizing borrowing against future tax revenues.

  1. Stop importing capital and exporting jobs.
    Japan and China have effectively maintained a trade advantage against the US by investing more than $2.3 trillion in US Treasuries. The inflow of funds on capital account acts to suppress their exchange rate, effectively pegging it against the greenback. Imposition of trade penalties would result in tit-for-tat retaliation that could easily escalate into a trade war. Capital flows, however, are already tightly controlled by China and others, so retaliation to capital account controls would be meaningless. Phased introduction of a withholding tax on foreign investments would discourage further capital inflows and encourage gradual repatriation of existing balances over time. Reciprocal access to capital markets could then be negotiated through individual tax treaties.
  2. Clear excess housing inventories.
    Supporting prices at current levels through low interest rates will prevent the market from clearing excess inventory. Stimulating demand through home-buyer subsidies would achieve this but increases public debt and, as Australia discovered, leaves a “shadow” of weak demand if the subsidy is later phased out. Allowing home prices to fall, on the other hand, would clear excess inventory but threaten the banking sector. Shoring up failing banks also requires funding, although this could be recovered over time through increased deposit insurance.
  3. Increase infrastructure spending.
    Infrastructure projects should not be evaluated on the number of jobs created but on their potential to generate future revenue streams. Whether toll roads or national broadband networks, revenue streams can be used to repay public debt. Projects that generate market-related returns on investment also open up opportunities for private sector funding. Spending on education and community assets should not be funded with debt as they provide no viable revenue streams for repayment. The same goes for repairs and maintenance to existing infrastructure — they should be funded out of current tax revenues. Similarly, research and development of unproven technologies with open-ended budgets and uncertain future revenues.
  4. Raise taxes to fund infrastructure investment.
    Raising taxes to repay debt, as FDR discovered in 1937, has the same effect as a deflationary gap in the private sector and shrinks national output. But raising taxes to fund infrastructure investment leaves no deflationary gap and increases the overall level of capital investment — and job creation — within the economy.
  5. Increase austerity.
    Cutting back on government spending merely re-opens the deflationary gap between income and spending. Reducing regular spending in order to free up funds for infrastructure projects, however, would leave no deflationary gap while accelerating job creation within the economy.

Bi-partisan approach
The magnitude and extent of the problems facing the US require a truly bi-partisan approach, unsuited to the rough-and-tumble of a vibrant democracy. Generational changes are required whose impact will be felt long after the next election term. It will take true leadership to forge a broad consensus and set the US on a sound path for the future.

Published in the November issue of Charter magazine.

Posted on

Europe’s Dying Bank Model – Gene Frieda – Project Syndicate

In general, the eurozone has outsized banks (assets equivalent to 325% of GDP) that are highly leveraged (the 15 largest banks’ leverage is 28.9 times their equity capital). They are also dependent on large quantities of wholesale debt – totaling €4.9 trillion (27% of total eurozone loans), with €660 billion maturing in the next two years – to fund low-yielding assets. According to Barclays Capital, the 15 largest banks increased their returns on equity by 58% between 1998 and 2007, with 90% of the gain coming from higher leverage. Returns have since collapsed.

This model’s viability depends on large amounts of cheap leverage, supported by implicit government backing.

via Europe’s Dying Bank Model – Gene Frieda – Project Syndicate.

Posted on

Quantitative Easing!!! – Andy Lees, UBS | Credit Writedowns

The BoJ announced today that it will expand its asset purchase programme by JPY5trn (USD66bn), with all the purchases being directed at JGB’s. Add that to the GBP75bn (USD120bn) by the BoE, CHF50bn (USD57bn) by the SNB and the EUR341bn (USD477bn) expansion of the ECB balance sheet since the end of June, and it collectively adds up to USD720bn. Clearly this explains the market rally from the low.

via Quantitative Easing!!! | Credit Writedowns.

Posted on

Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks

In the wake of the bailout, the biggest banks are bigger than ever. Twenty years ago the ten largest banks on the Street held 10 percent of America’s total bank assets. Now they hold over 70 percent.

….I doubt the President will be condemning the Street’s antics, or calling for a resurrection of Glass-Steagall and a breakup of the biggest banks. Democrats are still too dependent on the Street’s campaign money.

That’s too bad. You don’t have to be an occupier of Wall Street to conclude the Street is still out of control. And that’s bad for all of us.

via Robert Reich: Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks.

Posted on

Ron Paul: “Blame The Fed For The Financial Crisis” | ZeroHedge

The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price—the price of time—and that attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. It fails to see that the price of housing was artificially inflated through the Fed’s monetary pumping during the early 2000s, and that the only way to restore soundness to the housing sector is to allow prices to return to sustainable market levels. Instead, the Fed’s actions have had one aim—to keep prices elevated at bubble levels—thus ensuring that bad debt remains on the books and failing firms remain in business, albatrosses around the market’s neck.

The Fed’s quantitative easing programs increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. The debt is now so large that if the central bank begins to move away from its zero interest-rate policy, the rise in interest rates will result in the U.S. government having to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in additional interest on the national debt each year. Thus there is significant political pressure being placed on the Fed to keep interest rates low. The Fed has painted itself so far into a corner now that even if it wanted to raise interest rates, as a practical matter it might not be able to do so.

via Ron Paul: “Blame The Fed For The Financial Crisis” | ZeroHedge.

I agree that the Fed should not interfere with interest rates. It causes market imbalances that later lead to recessions and bubbles in stocks and housing and threaten the very survival of the banking system the Fed is trying to protect.

QE achieved the opposite of its stated objectives, raising long-term interest rates with lowering unemployment, but did not really increase the national debt by a dollar. Sales of  bonds by the Federal Treasury to the Federal Reserve is like the US government selling to itself. The Fed is just an off-balance sheet, special-purpose entity (think Enron, bank CDOs and other bad smells) created by  the government and banks in 1913 to  bypass restrictions in the Constitution on the issue of bank notes. In all but name it is a division of the US Treasury. The majority of the “independent” board of directors are political appointments. Ever seen a dissenting vote coming from one of the political appointees? Regional board members, where most dissenting votes come from, are a minority appointed by regional banks. They can dissent, but when it comes to counting the votes they’re outnumbered.

Posted on

The Bankers’ Capital War – Howard Davies – Project Syndicate

Basel 3, the Basel Committee’s new global regulatory standard on banks’ capital adequacy and liquidity, will more or less double the equity requirements, and will impose extra costs on banks deemed “too big to fail.” The Committee’s analysis of the economic consequences found that the impact on growth would be modest, perhaps reducing GDP by 0.33% after five years – easily within the margin of forecast error. The OECD took a different view, putting the growth impact at about twice that level, and rather higher in Europe, where companies rely far more on bank financing than they do in the US.

In sharp contrast, the Institute of International Finance, the leading trade association for the world’s top banks, believes that the impact of higher capital requirements could be far stronger. The IIF believes that GDP could be fully 5% lower after five years, with unemployment more than 7% higher.

The IIF’s forecast may seem alarmist, but the competing estimates are based on some intriguing analytical differences. Regulators take the view that the impact of higher capital requirements on the cost of credit to borrowers will be modest, as the overall cost of funds to banks will not rise much. They rest their case on the famous Modigliani-Miller theorem, which implies that a company cannot alter its capital cost by changing the balance between equity and debt on its balance sheet. If there is more equity, then logically debt should be cheaper, as the company (or bank) is better insulated from default.

Bankers accept that, in the long run, the theorem might hold, but argue that it will take time, especially given recent events, to persuade investors that banks are genuinely safer….

via The Bankers’ Capital War – Howard Davies – Project Syndicate.

Posted on

A year later everyone is catching on about Fed policy and net interest margins | Credit Writedowns

“As I wrote in April: If long rates are largely determined by expected future short rates, the longer short rates are at zero percent, the lower long rates will go. That’s toxic for bank interest margins…..

Now that we are seeing more movement down on net interest margins (BofA and Wells Fargo both showed margin compression for example), the mainstream media is finally catching on to the connection between Fed policy and net interest margins. You heard it here first though.”

via A year later everyone is catching on about Fed policy and net interest margins | Credit Writedowns.

Posted on

Bernanke Hangs Tough on Financial Reform

“Central banks certainly did not ignore issues of financial stability in the decades before the recent crisis, but financial stability policy was often viewed as the junior partner to monetary policy,” he [Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke] said. “One of the most important legacies of the crisis will be the restoration of financial stability policy to co-equal status with monetary policy.”

via Bernanke Hangs Tough on Financial Reform.

The problem with having two equal objectives is, when they conflict, which do you choose?

Posted on

Wells Fargo’s Margin Slips – WSJ.com

At Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, net interest margin fell to 3.84%, the fourth consecutive decline. Wells Fargo blamed the problem on its inability to lend enough of the deposits pouring into the bank. The decline overshadowed a 21% jump in third-quarter net income, which rose to $4.1 billion, as Wells Fargo’s deposit base expanded and nonperforming assets fell. It said its growth in loans and capital was “solid.”

Wells Fargo shares sank 8.4%, or $2.25, to $24.42 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 4 p.m.

via Wells Fargo’s Margin Slips – WSJ.com.

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper